Originally posted by SlingerXL Of course the conservatives tend to convienently forget that the 9-11 commision placed almost equal blame at BOTH their feet. I'm not denying intelligence was ignored in the Clinton administration, but who's administration did it occur under? The one who took gobs of vacations his first year in office, or the other one?

by the "other one" you're referring to the redneck moron that opted to have some chubby intern polish under his desk and god knows what else while attending to the "issues of our country" and who also opted not to take several opportunities to take out Bin "camel humper" Laden? oh...I see now ;-)

Originally posted by BCpro05 by the "other one" you're referring to the redneck moron that opted to have some chubby intern polish under his desk and god knows what else while attending to the "issues of our country" and who also opted not to take several opportunities to take out Bin "camel humper" Laden? oh...I see now ;-)

The fact of the matter is too much money for the military gets taken away from things that matter like schools. Past pentagon officials agree that we could decrease the military budget by 10% and still be the safest, most powerful nation on the planet.

__________________
PBN's #1 Reggae aficionado
Marriage for All
"Originally posted by Blank Disc i use herbal essences because i like the orgasming women in their commericals. "
"Originally posted by DreadLock Doc Without public education, the country would be about as competent as Small Talk. "

re- think your "no terrorist ties" comment, it's fact and record that Iraq and Hussein did offer to pay families of Hamas members...therefore those are TIES to terrorism! not to mention Iraqs intelligence service meeting with members of al qaeda (as reported by Brit other intelligence services)

also...I do take offense to his getting knobbers on our dime instead of handling the affairs of this country...but the left seem to think it ok...afterall, they seem to fine with Uncle Ted being an alcoholic, "should have been convicted felon" :-)

Originally posted by BCpro05 re- think your "no terrorist ties" comment, it's fact and record that Iraq and Hussein did offer to pay families of Hamas members...therefore those are TIES to terrorism! not to mention Iraqs intelligence service meeting with members of al qaeda (as reported by Brit other intelligence services)

Is this the same intelligence agency that told us Saddam had WMDs by any chance?

Quote:

Originally posted by BCpro05 also...I do take offense to his getting knobbers on our dime instead of handling the affairs of this country...but the left seem to think it ok...afterall, they seem to fine with Uncle Ted being an alcoholic, "should have been convicted felon" :-)

Dick sucking takes maybe 15 minutes (and I'm being generous). Taking the most vacations of any president before him takes... You do the math. But I guess the right thinks that's ok.

Dick sucking takes maybe 15 minutes (and I'm being generous). Taking the most vacations of any president before him takes... You do the math. But I guess the right thinks that's ok.

It's shocking that you don't know the real statistic.

Quote:

Dom Giordano -- Philadelphia Daily News

Moore counts weekends at Camp David and working vacations at the Texas ranch where Bush met at length with Tony Blair, Vincente Fox, and others. The actual figure of real vacation time actually comes out to about 15 percent. But, why let real numbers get in the way of a documenary's agenda.

Originally posted by SlingerXL They were all part of the same bill doofus. Look at my next post.

Why do you keep bringing up Clinton? Did HE invade Iraq? Is HE running for President?

Invade Iraq! Ha! You take a long hard look at the facts behind the nothing clinton did after the terrorist attacks under his administration! Its' sickening to think that many lives could have been saved had Clinton done anything to attempt to catch Bin Laden. And keep Saddam pinned under the treaty he signed. And what I find Ironic about the whole thing is how people are surprised that we haven't found any WMD's yet. Christ if a mother told her 14 year old son that she suspected he was hiding a playboy under his matress, and she was going to look for it in 7 days, do think it would be there when she came in to look for it!? Saddam would take great pleasure in making the United States look like morons. You miss the whole point. The US gave countless opprotunities to let there be no blood shed. Bush never wanted a war, he wanted full cooperation with Saddam and weapons inspectors. If Saddam had nothing to hide than why did he make the US jump through hoops to get things done over there? We asked for proof that the weapons had been destroyed, none was ever given, we asked for full cooperation, none was given. Its unfortunate people think the US should let a piss country like Iraq make a ***** out of the United States. I mean if we would have just left, what kind of 'tough' impression would that have left on terrorist cells. I don't know whats worse, the fact that approxomatley 1000 people have died in Iraq, or the fact that over 1200 people die preventable deaths every day, and not a word is said about it from these anit war people. Its pure bull****. How can you
wish prevent death, and let 400,000 people smoke themselves away, 300,000 people eat themselves away, and the medical profession 'cure' 100,000 people to death. (the numbers are right, if you don't believe me check). Answer me this, how much more justification should we need to invade Iraq!? And then to blame bush, bush didn't gather 1 ****bit of info, he was just briefed on it, and made a decision accordingly. Its not his fault he was bull****ed.

Originally posted by insanity15 Invade Iraq! Ha! You take a long hard look at the facts behind the nothing clinton did after the terrorist attacks under his administration! Its' sickening to think that many lives could have been saved had Clinton done anything to attempt to catch Bin Laden.

Nevermind that several top military aides of his were strongly opposed to it. People like Gen.[Henry Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It's sickening that so many lives could've been saved if BUSH had gone after Bin Laden earlier. Don't try to blame everything on Clinton you rampant apologist. I don't think Clinton did everything correctly but hindsight is 20/20.

Quote:

Originally posted by insanity15 And keep Saddam pinned under the treaty he signed. And what I find Ironic about the whole thing is how people are surprised that we haven't found any WMD's yet. Christ if a mother told her 14 year old son that she suspected he was hiding a playboy under his matress, and she was going to look for it in 7 days, do think it would be there when she came in to look for it!? Saddam would take great pleasure in making the United States look like morons.

You suck at analogies. How the **** are you gonna destroy/get rid of the amount of weaponry Colin Powel said he had? And if he really had it, wouldn't PROVOKING him not be a wise choice?

Here's a BBC newspiece about how one of the key dossiers used by Powell and Blair to push the idea that Iraq had WMDs was plaguerized from a postgrad's paper written a decade earlier. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2736149.stm
Here's some highlights of Colin Powell's speech for the U.N. on Iraq.

[color=orange-red]"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources."

"These are not assertions."

"What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

"... Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan. ..."[/color]

Quote:

Originally posted by insanity15 You miss the whole point. The US gave countless opprotunities to let there be no blood shed. Bush never wanted a war, he wanted full cooperation with Saddam and weapons inspectors. If Saddam had nothing to hide than why did he make the US jump through hoops to get things done over there? We asked for proof that the weapons had been destroyed, none was ever given, we asked for full cooperation, none was given. Its unfortunate people think the US should let a piss country like Iraq make a ***** out of the United States. I mean if we would have just left, what kind of 'tough' impression would that have left on terrorist cells.

If Iraq made the U.S. jump through hoops to prove WE didn't have any biological warfare agents and we weren't violating any treaties with our number of WMDs, would WE stand for it? No, because we are a sovereign nation that isn't Iraq's *****.

Quote:

Originally posted by insanity15 I don't know whats worse, the fact that approxomatley 1000 people have died in Iraq, or the fact that over 1200 people die preventable deaths every day, and not a word is said about it from these anit war people. Its pure bull****. How can you
wish prevent death, and let 400,000 people smoke themselves away, 300,000 people eat themselves away, and the medical profession 'cure' 100,000 people to death. (the numbers are right, if you don't believe me check). Answer me this, how much more justification should we need to invade Iraq!? And then to blame bush, bush didn't gather 1 ****bit of info, he was just briefed on it, and made a decision accordingly. Its not his fault he was bull****ed.

So our justifications for war are the fact that some people make the choice to live an unhealthy lifestyle?

Bush also didn't CHECK one ****bit of info. Am I the only one that sees the irony in the fact that the guy that said saddam had WMDs was nicknamed Curveball?

First the avatar, now this.... what's next? A post on how you stay thin with the Fitness Made Simple plan? (I was gonna put a smiley here, but neither the stuck out tongue nor the wide open mouth seems appropriate...)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

__________________"tHIS "bREWMASTER" HAS NO IDEA HOW POLITICS REALLY WORK I bet this guy is unemployed,begs on street-corners and collects food stamps!" - XTRMelite

Originally posted by SlingerXL . It's sickening that so many lives could've been saved if BUSH had gone after Bin Laden earlier.

yes i will agree with you on that. but do you honestly think Bush deserves as much blame for September 11th as he recieves? I have not once heard 1 tv station, or 1 news caster even come close to suggesting Clintons innaction is to blame. Yes Bush should have probably went after Bin Laden. But look what happened when he tried to go after Saddam! Americans were, and mostly still are outraged. Saddam could of been the next Bin Ladin, and we will never know. But I'm glad we won't have to ever find out. Christ, do you realize that during the presidency of Bill Clinton (yeah i talk about him way to much, but he plays a huge role in 9/11) there was a team of elite navy, and marine special ops, trained specifically to kill Bin Ladin, and more than twice were there times that locations had been verified that Bin Ladin was at this certain location, and Clinton refused to do anything. However there was one time, that Clinton did give the go ahead to bomb a terrorist gather, offcials never did know what it was about, and by the time the bombs had exploded Ussamah was gone. Should Bush hold some responsibilty for the 9/11 attacks, no doubt, should Clinton recieve more, definitley. Does he? No. Why? Maybe because the news media is mainly liberal and biased. Who knows. But if were a murder case, its quite clear to see who would be convicted. And no not Bush.

Originally posted by insanity15 yes i will agree with you on that. but do you honestly think Bush deserves as much blame for September 11th as he recieves? I have not once heard 1 tv station, or 1 news caster even come close to suggesting Clintons innaction is to blame.

I've heard plenty.

Quote:

Originally posted by insanity15 Yes Bush should have probably went after Bin Laden. But look what happened when he tried to go after Saddam! Americans were, and mostly still are outraged. Saddam could of been the next Bin Ladin, and we will never know.

Yes we will. We know now. Saddam had no connection to any terrorist attack on the U.S. Bin Laden did. Bin Laden was not the head of a sovereign nation and the case against Bin Laden wasn't made on false pretenses.

Quote:

Originally posted by insanity15 But I'm glad we won't have to ever find out. Christ, do you realize that during the presidency of Bill Clinton (yeah i talk about him way to much, but he plays a huge role in 9/11) there was a team of elite navy, and marine special ops, trained specifically to kill Bin Ladin, and more than twice were there times that locations had been verified that Bin Ladin was at this certain location, and Clinton refused to do anything.

I did know that. Interestingly enough, the reorganization of the military in the 1980s under the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which has done a lot of good, helped us to downsize the military. It's helped to rationalize military spending and spend more on the areas where we need it -- but essentially it made the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff much more powerful. It centralized authority there. And it just so happens that Clinton's Joint Cheif of Staff was Gen. Henry Shelton who was strongly opposed to it. But, then again, I didn't expect you to know that.

Quote:

Originally posted by insanity15 However there was one time, that Clinton did give the go ahead to bomb a terrorist gather, offcials never did know what it was about, and by the time the bombs had exploded Ussamah was gone. Should Bush hold some responsibilty for the 9/11 attacks, no doubt, should Clinton recieve more, definitley. Does he? No. Why? Maybe because the news media is mainly liberal and biased. Who knows. But if were a murder case, its quite clear to see who would be convicted. And no not Bush.

Rupert Murdoch is a conservative bastard who owns an enormous amount of the mainstream media. CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC are very negligably liberal. I don't know how Bush was supposed to get all those terror memos and files if he was so much goddamn vacation the year before 9-11.

Originally posted by SlingerXL the reorganization of the military in the 1980s under the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which has done a lot of good, helped us to downsize the military.

yeah, as in deciding that over 1 million active US military personel are required to fill out their serivce requirments? Gee, I wonder why Bush has to over deploy Iraq with national guardsmen and women who've had to do their share, along with someone elses.

Originally posted by insanity15 Should Bush hold some responsibilty for the 9/11 attacks, no doubt, should Clinton recieve more, definitley. Does he? No. Why? Maybe because the news media is mainly liberal and biased.

Clinton did not receive intelligence briefings to the extent of "terrorists are planning to attack possibly using air planes as weapons do something now to stop them" and not bother reading it. It's all on Bush hombre

__________________A Haiku about Life - By Secret Asian Mantwitch slaps me around
he likes to make me his *****
Because of small cock

THere's these guys, in a place called Washington right, and they've formed something called a commision to investigate what happened on September 11th. The guys in this commision looked at where the intel fell short such as being unprepared for this attack that they had ample warning for. If you tried reading something you'd know this, go give it a shot sometime.

Quote:

The commission's report found that the hijackers had repeatedly broken the law in entering the United States, that bin Laden may have micromanaged the attacks but did not pay for them, that intelligence agencies had considered the threat of suicide hijackings, and that Bush received an August 2001 briefing on evidence of continuing domestic terrorist threats from al Qaeda.

....

I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center," Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said in May 2002.

But in its investigation, the commission found that an attack described as unimaginable had in fact been imagined, repeatedly. The commission said that several threat reports circulated within the government in the late 1990s raised the explicit possibility of an attack using airliners as missiles.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command had gone so far as to develop exercises to counter the threat and, according to a Defense Department memorandum unearthed by the commission, planned a drill in April 2001 that would have simulated a terrorist crash into the Pentagon.

On the original question, if by defense you mean mindless slaughter and usurping of national leaders for nothing more than a foot hold in the Middle East, or senselessly destroying nations based upon hearsay and to bolster votes through combat success, then no Kerry will do a poor job, if you mean defense as in keeping people from attacking us and fortifying America, I say he will do as good of a job as Bush ever did.

Clinton did not receive intelligence briefings to the extent of "terrorists are planning to attack possibly using air planes as weapons do something now to stop them" and not bother reading it. It's all on Bush hombre

Quote:

But in its investigation, the commission found that an attack described as unimaginable had in fact been imagined, repeatedly. The commission said that several threat reports circulated within the government in the late 1990s raised the explicit possibility of an attack using airliners as missiles.

Hmmm... late 1990's... who was President?

And that's why you have made the top of my list. Come back when you have some source material that doesn't disprove your own quote, genius.

__________________"tHIS "bREWMASTER" HAS NO IDEA HOW POLITICS REALLY WORK I bet this guy is unemployed,begs on street-corners and collects food stamps!" - XTRMelite

Read the whole quote you ****ing idiot. If you had more than the intelect of the average 8 year old you'd be able to do simple logic, like connecting ideas.

The idea of planes being used for terrorist attacks was common since the CLinton administration

PLUS

Knowledge that an Al Quaeda attack against american financial institutions was imminemt in August 2001

= Bush knew that Al Quaeda was going to attack and that planes were a possible vector of attack. The fact that Clinton knew of the possibility of an attack using planes means NOTHING without also knowing an attack was imminent in the near future.

You're not going to get another response from me. I can't tell if you're actually THAT stupid or just playing along to try and derail the argument but your inability to use even basic logic means any discussion is wasted on you. You're done dude, the 9-11 commission and every sane and rational person in the country can see that Bush ****ed up but you're such a blatant aplogist you can't see past the "go go bush" banner you've got taped across your eyes. It's people like you that are the reason democracy doesn't work. People that will not look at the issues and decide which party works for them but people who will side with a party and then try to twist the issues to fit with their candidate. Stop pretending you're going to have a discussion when all you're going to do is make up your mind from the outset and try to reinforce your decision.

Ignored, good bye.

__________________A Haiku about Life - By Secret Asian Mantwitch slaps me around
he likes to make me his *****
Because of small cock

It doesn't matter who the next president will be because this nation's .gov is too polarized to get anything done. It will take many more terrorist attacks to whip us into reality before we see light at the end of the tunnel. Go ahead and believe your canidate will make a difference, I'm sure he will create a job for everyone who wants one and defeat terrorism by the time he gets booted out of office.